28 comments:

This is scary. Federal courts are imposing same-sex "marriage" on an unwilling people in full violation of the Constitution. The 10th amendment specifies the central government ONLY has those powers the people of the states specifically delegate to it.

This is a disturbing trend. Next thing you know, DC could claim the power to indefinitely detain citizens in violation of the Sixth Amendment. Or it might decide to ignore the Fourth Amendment and undertake a massive citizen surveillance program.

I bet ole Pat was just as upset when the Court denied the people the power to ban interracial marriage. The 14th Amendment expressly prohibits the states from denying the people equal protection of the laws.

I wonder what other state laws on marriage and divorce, aka contracts, will have to give way to un-elected federal judicial preemption? The same thing is happening with voter id laws where the clear power of states to administer the election process, absent violation of existing federal law, is being overruled by judicial fiat. I really don't care about gay marriage, but I do care about federalism.

We know voter impersonation fraud is basically a myth, and there are lots of people who don't drive, mostly urban, minority, low income and young people, so they don't have IDs. Since we know preventing voter fraud isn't the real reason for these laws, it isn't hard to figure out that the point is to create another barrier to voting for these folks, who aren't likely to go through the hassle of getting a photo ID just to vote. Which is why Republicans are also doing things like limiting early voting and same day registration.

Ah, yes, same day registration. So tell us, KyCobb, how will one identify themselves so as to same day register AND vote? I was once denied being able to vote because I didn't change my address in time to be assigned a new polling place, so, thereby, I wasn't legally registered on that election day. I guess I was suppressed. BTW Voter ids don't have to be drivers' licenses. Are you ok with providing those voter ids free of charge?

Your vote was suppressed. There isn't any good reason not to have same day registration. If you have to have voter I'd, it would be ok if they can get it at the polling place same day without documents. Just taking their photos and getting a thumbprint should suffice to discourage a felony which doesn't profit the perpetrator.

Up to 65% of Black voters voted for Amendment 1 to North Carolina's Constitution protecting traditional marriage. So that federal judge invalidated more Black voters than all those eeeevil Tea Party Republicans combined.

Given your belief that everyone's civil rights are subject to repeal by 51% of the voters, if the electorate voted to ban Old Rebel from marrying, or to ban Old Rebel from owning guns, you wouldn't even consider going to court to defend your rights, correct?

You're assuming someone took away homosexuals' "right" to marry. Such a right never existed until the Cultural Marxists dreamed it up. Simply claiming a right to something doesn't create an obligation to grant that person's wish.

The right to self-defense, on the other hand, is well-defined by history and tradition.

There is no equal protection argument for group marriage, because having two marriage licenses is not equal to having one. If anything is going to bring group marriage, its the Right's claim that religious liberty allows believers to violate the law, as in the Hobby Lobby case.

To protect the interest of the original spouse and the original spouse's children in the emotional and financial support of the other original spouse. Another reason is to prevent social instability which could be caused if rich men build large harems leaving few eligible women for less wealthy men to marry. We observe that in polygamous communities where teenage boys are cast out to fend for themselves so that they can't compete with the old men for teenage girls.

In other words, you're saying society must ensure that its members conform to certain standards to promote stability and perpetuation.

I couldn't agree more.

Since only a man and a woman can create babies, and since those who are genetically invested in the survival of their own offspring will provide the best care for those offspring, it's in society's interest to grant special rights to the union of a man and a woman - and deny those rights to others.

Old Rebel, I have personal knowledge that you are very wrong. My children were abandoned by their birth parents, and I could not love them more. Society has no interest in denying marriage to same sex couples.

If someone from Saudi Arabia chimed in and claimed KyCobb is wrong about polygamy because his upbringing was congenial, I would rush to KyCobb's defense and point out that an anecdote does not refute broad experience over time, and that KyCobb's observations of the general impact of polygamy are backed by reality.

Same with the rearing of children: There are indeed loving stepparents, and I am gladdened to hear that you are one.

But that doesn't change the fact that traditional society has learned over the generations that stepchildren are often treated like stepchildren (see the Cinderella effect). And modern science backs this in studies of inclusive fitess, the tendency to favor one's own offspring.

Frankly, your comments are insulting to the millions of adoptive parents who have raised and loved countless generations of children because those children are ours, just as much as any biological children we may have. The physical capacity to conceive and give birth to children has zero to do with your capacity to be a good parent. It certainly doesn't justify denying the children of same sex couples the benefits of having married parents.

The wisdom from the accumulated experience of countless generations is hardly "prejudice." Same-sex "marriage" is a dangerous experiment, one made all the more needless in light of our understanding of what it takes to rear the next generation.

No one is suggesting it should be made illegal to remarry. In the real world, we cannot always achieve the ideal model, and the Cinderella effect only supports the model of one man and one woman raising their own children. Sometimes the best we can do is to come as close to that model as we can.

The wisdom from the accumulated experience of countless generations is hardly 'prejudice.'"

It is, just like the wisdom of countless generations that black slavery was good and miscegenation was bad was prejudice.

"Same-sex "marriage" is a dangerous experiment, one made all the more needless in light of our understanding of what it takes to rear the next generation."Nonsense. Same sex couples exist and they have children. Giving them and their children the legal benefits and responsibilities of marriage is not, in any way shape or form, dangerous.

"No one is suggesting it should be made illegal to remarry. In the real world, we cannot always achieve the ideal model, and the Cinderella effect only supports the model of one man and one woman raising their own children. Sometimes the best we can do is to come as close to that model as we can."

Cinderella had an evil stepmom, not an evil stepdad, and banning ssm doesn't prevent same-sex couples from having children. As most judges who have considered the issue have found nationwide, this is nothing but a rationalization to justify anti-gay animus. You've lost this argument.

Yes, the Cultural Marxists have won. The federal government has changed the definition of marriage so homosexuals can play house. An institution created to birth and raise the next generation has been perverted.

I'm sure that when the polygamists start agitating for their equal rights, you'll be in the vanguard defending the integrity of same-sex marriage.

Once again, polygamists wouldn't be arguing for equal rights, but rather special rights to hold more than one marriage license, so there is no equal protection argument for polygamy. And you are the one who believes in the dictatorship of the proletariat, which would make you the Marxist.